Sunday, November 30, 2003

I should have a special section called Embedded Scholars: Noah Feldman will win first dishonorable mention. The late Edward W Said so disliked this Noah Feldman. We, in Middle East studies, never knew or heard of this fellow until the US war of colonization in Iraq. The US colonial administrator then hired this Feldman, a law professor at New York University, and New York Times published a laudatory profile about him. It was all about how this expert is going to help the poor Iraqis write their own constitution. It was so annoying and so traditionally colonialist that you felt being taken back in time. And then he was everywhere: NPR and other media outlets sought him to explain the poor feeble-minded Iraqis to the American people. And in one story in New York Times he observed that people in the Middle East “who do not normally act rationally” have been recently acting rationally. Kid you not. So I have been quite annoyed with this guy, as you can tell. And then yesterday, in the New York Times (November 29th, 2003, p. A7), he was quoted: he was, of course, expressing his objections to democracy and elections in Iraq because “the wrong people could get elected.” Imagine.

Saturday, November 29, 2003

Judge for yourself: this is from a transcript of White House press reporters asking Bush questions upon returning from Baghdad:
THE PRESIDENT: Good job.
Q: What kind of ball cap was it? What did it say on it?
DR. RICE: Mine was in my bag, it was --
Q: A Cleveland Brown's hat?
Q: It was actually -- I didn't have a Cleveland Brown's hat.
Q: That would have been a dead giveaway.
DR. RICE: That would have been a dead giveaway.
THE PRESIDENT: Here are the names of the people here.
Q: We would love to get some video of you up here sometime, sir.
Q: What does it say, Blake?
THE PRESIDENT: -- something like this.
Q: Did you really pull it down that low?
THE PRESIDENT: No. We had pretty tinted windows. We went through a gate where --
Q: They thought, who in the world is that?
THE PRESIDENT: Eddie said, we're coming to a gate.
Q: (Inaudible.)
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I'm telling you, this is -- again, had this been jeopardized in any way, we wouldn't put myself and/or you all in this position. And we were very -- we were cautious and we needed to be. And I want to thank you for honoring that. This is an historic trip. And it'll reverberate in such positive ways for these kids who are -- and these soldiers who are far away from home serving us. And it's exactly what I wanted to do.
Q: Thank you.

To my readers in the Arab world. I have received a few emails from readers in the Arab world asking that I create an Arabic version of this website. I am seriously considering either making an Arabic version, or creating a new Arabic website. Unfortunately, Neal, may he be praised, does not know Arabic to help out.

Friday, November 28, 2003

Why all this noise about this Bush’s trip to Iraq? Well, it proves that Iraq is safe and peaceful. Yes, the president stayed for two hours only, but that was close to 120 minutes. Not a short period of time, especially if measured by dog years standards. To be sure, the trip was a sneak visit, and lights were turned off, and he threatened to return the plane (he called it “this baby”) if the press leaked the news. It proves that the president is right: he is making progress (do not tell him that a US soldier was killed hours after his departure). And we are told that he met with Iraqis: that was true: 4 of the most enthusiastic puppets of the Iraqi puppet council were whisked (probably blindfolded) to a secret location so that they could shake hands with this historic leader. In the short speech that Bush made, “freedom” and “free” were used no less than 7 times. And the US media is going crazy over the trip; and they insult their own American troops, that they worship so deeply, by suggesting that the two hour trip was a great boost to troop morale. Why?

The brilliant anchorman Tom Brokaw was moderating the debate of democratic presidential candidates last Monday. As he was asking questions about the Iraq situation, he wondered aloud, and with great confidence, whether the Taliban (YES THE TALIBAN) may return to Iraq, YES IRAQ, if US troops withdraw. These are the gifted journalists of the mainstream US press.

Lies of the Times (this should become a permanent feature of the site): This is what the New York Times said on Saturday, November 22, 2003 (p. A 3): "There were in fact relatively few large gatherings of demonstrators during the president's stay, although noisy crowds of several hundred people assembled from time to time outside Buckingham Palace. The main protest march on Thursday was a bit sparse at times and nowhere as big as the weekend antiwar protests in London earlier this year." This when Scotland Yard estimated crowd to reach as high as 100000 (and organizers put the estimate at 200000).

Why the fascination in this country with JFK? Is it a certain secret desire for royalty? And why is he lionized by liberals in US? After all, when the civil rights movement was gaining steem, he yelled at his white advisor on civil rights: "Can't you get your goddamned friends off those buses?" See the biography by R. Reeves.

Being in Washington, DC, I was stuck how many people (people I know and people I do not know) now know that I love fried eggplants. The secret is out.

Only when I travel, I get to be subjected to US visual media. I confine myself to US print media, as the irritation is more contained and I am spared the faces of the rulers. But as I watched some US TV news yesterday, I was shocked: shocked at the extent to which Michael Jackson's story overshadows what is going on Iraq, and shocked at the extent they downplayed the demonstrations in UK (imagine: 100000 (some estimate put the figure at 200000) on a weekday: that is huge for London), and shocked at the extent they (mis)covered the demonstrations against globalization in Miami. One MSNBC anchorperson refused to air the scene of demonstrators in London taking down an effigy of Bush. CNN covered the demonstrators in Miami with such hostility and bias, and only allowed the Police to define the demonstrators. CNN, MSNBC, FOX News: they really are the same: the coverage is the same, the themes are the same, the sensationalism is the same, and even the hairdos are the same. The US has not given up on Ahmad Chalabi: the New York Times quoted some official the other day to the effect that this international embezzler (on whom a US-press CIA leaked report about him stated that people in Iraq either did not know him or felt a strong urge to puke when hearing his name) may become the first prime minister of post-Saddam, US-run Iraq.

The right-wing Lebanese newspaper An-Nahar reports today on the first page that there were secret clauses in the agreement between US colonial administration and the Iraqi puppet council: the secret agreement, according to the paper, permits the US to station troops in 6 military bases around Iraq for years to come(53305 years to be exact). Al-Mustaqbal newspaper, on the other hand, reports on the first page that US military is hard at work in Iraq to revive Saddam's brutal intelligence apparatus, and using Saddam's intelligence thugs for intelligence operations. Furthermore, I want to note that there is resistance in Iraq that is rarely mentioned: the passive peaceful resistance by Iraqis to the occupation. The kind of resistance urged by Ayatollah Sistani who called on Iraqis to refrain from violence but to not cooperate with occupation and to make it clear to the occupiers that they are not wanted.

Note: I have been told by some of you that sometimes you cannot scroll down to the bottom of the site. Solution: make the screen go to full page, or vice versa, and that should give you access to the bottom of the site. Neal will solve that problem, I am sure.

Saturday, November 15, 2003

This is too hilarious not to share with you. This person reviewed my last book on amazon.com while admitting that he did not bother to read it: "The book, like all of Abukhalil's other books, is a one-sided opinion on what the current global crisis is all about. However, it fails miserably in being fair and balanced or even informative. This person is basically critical of everything and everyone and brings his own opinions into a debate. His poor attempt to replace Edward Said as a formative expert on the Middle East fails. I would not recommend this book, which I chose not to purchase after breifly leafing though. the book is predictably anti-american. most of the information in it, are either public information or the writer's own personal feelings which are fueled by anymosity and hatred. "

If there is one book to read on Iraq it must be Hanna Batatu’s The Old Social Classes and the Revolutionary Movements of Iraq (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978). In 1283 pages, he explains Iraq to you. I was lucky to have studied under the late Batatu at the American University of Beirut, and later followed him to Georgetown. This is what he wrote about the Mosul Revolt of 1959 (this what the American occupiers may unleash): “For four days and four nights Kurds and Yezidis stood against Arabs; Assyrian and Aramean Christians against Arab Moslems; the Arab tribe of Albu Mutaiwit against the Arab tribe of Shammar; the Kurdish tribe of Al-Gargariyyah against Arab Albu Mutaiwit; the peasants of the Mosul country against their landlords; the soldiers of the Fifth Brigade against their officers; the periphery of the city of Mosul against its center; the plebeians of the Arab quarters of al-Makkawi and Wadi Hajar against the aristocrats of the Arab quarter of Ad-Dawwasah; and within the quarter of Bab al-Baid, the family of Rajabu against its traditional rivals, the Aghawat” (p. 866). But Bush understands all that, and the country is reading instead Bernard Lewis. I just finished his last two books: What Went Wrong? And the Crisis of Islam, and he repeats the same things in both books and if you read the article “Return (from vacation?) of Islam” from the late seventies, you do not need to read anything else by him. He has no new ideas; his hostility to Arabs and Muslims has remained constant.

Kanan Makiya is a charlatan and a fraud who, for some reason—it could be his love for Israel and his acceptance of an honorary doctorate from an Israeli university, although he dropped out of MIT, is a darling to the liberal and conservative US media. I saw him on Charlie Rose two weeks ago talking about his work: while he holds a chair in Islamic studies at Brandeis University (although he has never studied Islamic or Middle East studies, but for Brandeis qualifications are ideology and love for Israel, and not such silly matters as degrees and specialization, he has been in Iraq doing work for the puppet council regarding the future Iraqi constitution. The committee (hand-picked by the Americans) has the task of going around the country and asking people what they think. This Makiya told his easily impressed host Charlie Rose, who finds it difficult to shut up (he interviewed me once when he was working for CBS and was quite ill-prepared and asked me what to ask his next guest, the Israeli ambassador), and told him the people from around the country are welcoming this committee and discussing the matters of constitutional formation. That was flat out lie. No such things are taking place. Here what the Economist of September 27th says: ““GO AWAY,” bawled a rabble of men, rattling sabres and cudgels at an Iraqi delegation sent to the southern city of Hilla for talks on how to draw up the country's constitution. “We have nothing left to discuss.” This summer, Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani issued a fatwa declaring that only an elected assembly has the legitimacy to draw up a constitution. And that, for many of Iraq's 15m Shias, is that.” That settles it for me.

Friday, November 14, 2003

Aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoetnt tihng is taht the frist and lsat ltteer be at the rghit pclae.The rset can be a tatol mses and you can sitll raed it wouthit porbelm.The huamn mnid rdeas the wrod as a wlohe.

I am still on my way back to California. The people in Wisconsin I discovered to my amusement (do not tell them I said that) speak in the same way as the people in Fargo. I was even tempted to ask them to play scenes for me from that delightful movie. Remember that bridge over Tigress River in Baghdad that was opened to great fanfare (fanfare is originally an Arabic word, one of many Arabic words that have made their way into English, like cable, rope, sugar, sherbet, alcohol, magazine, banana, etc)? The bridge opening caused unending coverage on CNN and Fox and the rest of the government media. That bridge has been closed, without fanfare. I only saw a reference to it in Arabic press, and today in Chicago Tribute. It was not fit to print in NYTimes, of course. NYTimes has noticed that the "Iron Hammer" bombings have no strategic or military purpose. Chicago Tribute concedes that it was only for morale of the troops, still sagging due to the attacks. In one building, which did not have any weapons and was a textile factory, the troops asked guards to leave before bombing it. CNN, however, still covers the bombings as if they are WWII "strategic bombings." The government is of course in a panic state: worried about the coming election: they say that they will speed up elections, and yet they disagree with the moderate Ayatollah Sistani (who refused to meet with Paul Bremer more than 26 times so far, and the latter keep trying to see him) who insists that no constitution will have legitimacy if drafted by an appointed council. The Ayatollah is more democratic than the democratic occupiers, and their democratic stooges (like that fake democratic Kanan Makiya). But the the stooges rightly fear elections because they have as much chances of success, as I do in running for governor of Alabama (or Texas, or CA, OK or anywhere else in the US, or Lebanon, or anywhere, OK I GET THE POINT, I am not electable).

I was really pleased to meet with the staff of the Progressive magazine yesterday. They have really rejuvenated things up in recent years. But I kept thinking: we in the left in the US need a dose of a sense of humor. Leftwing publications I notice (in Lebanon, US, and other places, but not in Egypt or France for example). That does not in any way mean that we have to compromise our message; but we should not sound like the awful Soviet publications either. That is why Michael Moore and Al Franken are doing so well. We in the left have a reputation, well earned, for being quite boring. We should change that, I think.

My host Jamal, praise be to him, and glory be to me,--always--baked me Manaqish: one of my favorite foods: a piece of Arabic bread dough: you cover it with olive oil mixed with Za`tar (a mix of sesame seeds and Thyme herbs--best one are from Jordan). It was delicious. Angry Arab was not angry for the duration of the consumption of the two manaqish. Upon finishing the delicious meal, Angry Arab resumed his angry state.

Thursday, November 13, 2003

So the US now admits that its forces are holding some 5000 Iraqi "terrorists." They, however, concede that only 20 are "suspected" of ties to AlQaedah. Yet, commander Sanchez yeserday conceded that none of the 20 has proven ties to AlQaedah. Yet, US officials keep peddling the lies about foreign terrorists in Iraq. But the US is working hard to win "hearts and minds" of Iraqis. Toward that end, the Sunni suburbs of Baghdad are now being bombed nightly. Imagine: the US controls Iraq, and now US forces bomb the Sunni suburbs of Baghdad hoping to kill "bad guys." I used to be convinced that Saddam is finished: and I sure hope that he never ever holds power anywhere. But US bombings and stupidity in Iraq are helping the fortunes of the Ba`th. Remaking the Middle East it is.

I cannot believe what is going on in Iraq: some 5000 "terrorists" are now in US custody: they say only 20 of them are suspected of being in AlQaedah. Yet, the commander of US troops yesterday said that they were not able to find evidence of even on person of the 20 being linked to AlQaedah. Yet, they still go around drawing links between Sadda, Bin Laden, Hitler, and Lenin.

I cannot believe what is going on in Iraq: some 5000 "terrorists" are now in US custody: they say only 20 of them are suspected of being in AlQaedah. Yet, the commander of US troops yesterday said that they were not able to find evidence of even on person of the 20 being linked to AlQaedah. Yet, they still go around drawing links between Sadda, Bin Laden, Hitler, and Lenin.

Wednesday, November 12, 2003

I only get exposed to the brilliant insights of NPR while in the shower. Just now I heard the brilliant analysis of an NPR correspondent in Iraq: he was commenting on the bombing in Nasiriyyah which killed many Italian troops, along with many innocent Iraqis. He said that Italian troops, unlike American troops, are not nice to the Iraqi people--I kid you not. He went on to say that Italian troops yell at Iraqis and do not treat them nice. In fact, Italian troops clearly did not want to be confused with American troops who are quite resented in the Sunni triangle, the Shi`ite parrallelogram, and the Kurdish trapezoid. I noticed that Italian military vehicles carry huge Arabic calligraphy identifying them "Italians" in order to distance themselves from the Americans. This chaos in Iraq will increasingly help the effort of those who may wish to impose yet another tyrancial rule in the country. So much for the American promises of "freedom" and "democracy" in Iraq, and elsewhere in the Middle East. But to be fair, Colin Powell did promise before the war to remake the Middle East. It has already been remade: into a brutal and bloody chaos, with human rights violations as rampant as ever. "The war on terrorism" continues.

I do not like John Kerry. Not only because he has such a bad record against Palestinians and Arabs, and not only because he has the audacity of speaking out against the war now after voting for the authorization to go to war, and not only because he is--like Clinton before him--championing the "middle class"--read white Middle Class--and does not say a word about the poor, but his personality bothers me. He acts so earnest, and feigns sincerity. He reminds me of the Red Cross Protestant rich kids that went to my high school, and that I enjoyed mocking. You know: the ones who think that they are better for humanity because they took a trip for a whole week to India nad and had their picture taken with..you know who (the Mother of all Miracles). These are the ones who would admonish you if you do not throw the Pepsi can in the recylcling bin. No wonder I make a point of not recycling (I am just kidding her). Oh, and I feel that people like him always get their punishment: they tend to be born with the charisma of a tomato.

I am really mad about the exploitation of the sotry of Jessica Lynch. She is a victim many times over: she was a victim of those Saddam's thugs who raped her; a victim of the Pentagon's exploitation of her ordeal and the invention of stuff that did not happen; a victim of the sleazy Iraqi lawyer who made up a story to make money out of his fake rescue of her; and now a victim of the sensational media. She has been brave in criticizing the exploitation of her story.

I must have such a heavy accent; I notice that when I am on the road. People who know me and who are close to me (and even my students--I think) get used to my Arabic accent. But with strangers, it is a different story. I asked a flight attendant for "bread." And she kept asking, "what"? "What is it that you want"? And I kept saying, as slowly as I can, "bread." And then she inquired, are you asking for a "bed."? I kidd you not. I was so tempted to tell her: yes, I want a large bed and a down comforter with a thread count that exceeds 375. But then I remembered that Federal laws and regulations now prohibit passengers from ever joking or acting sarcastic with the crew.

In case you have not heard, the president of US gave a speech on democracy, and he mentioned (very politely) Saudi Arabia and Egypt, among the usual suspects. The White House pressposkeperson (according to the account of NYTimes) quickly explained the president's remarks and said that he in no way threatened that there would be "conseuquences" for the pro-American dictatorship if those dictarorships continued to be dictatorships. Long live liberty.
For the full text, see

Wednesday, November 05, 2003

For those of you who have been receiving pictures of Iraqi soldiers talking to Iraqi children (presumably as evidence that the Iraqi people love and are in love with US occupation), and for those who heard deputy liar Cheney cite Zogby poll to the effect that Iraqis would love to be bombed again by the US (see John Zogby himself in today's column in NYT distance himself from Cheney's distortion of his own poll), tell people this: The Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education has conducted a survey of Iraqis inside and outside the country, and found out that 76.4 % of Iraqi want the US OUT (not in, OUT) of Iraq. This is from today's Arab neo-conservative, pro-Saudi, and pro-US Al-Hayat.

New York Times is trying its best to save Bush of political damage. They had an article yesterday, or the other day, in which they asserted that Iraqis still consider American occupation forces to be liberators and, LISTEN TO THIS, their "tutors on democracy." We are going back in times. Even the French occupation of Algeria was not that vulgar in discourse (they were, in fact, but go along with my polemical overstress). When I am on the road, I get to see more of US TV news which I normally avoid thanks to my three satellites at home (and do not forget my satellite radio--and satellite toaster oven): I saw a panel at the Bush Presidential library at A&M University in Texas (not to be confused with M & M University in Detroit). It featured John Burns of New York Times and Gen. Tony Frank: I swear that John Burns (a British citizen) was more patriotic and more gong-ho than Gen. Frank: Burns tried his best to assure the audience that Iraqis love, and are in love, with George W. Bush. John Burns also almost bragged that he does not know any of the Middle East languages; he forgot to add that he does not know anything about the Middle East either, and it shows. New York Times tell us that schools are refurbished and open in Iraq: UNICEF paid for many of the renovations, and Newsweek adds that many of the US renovations were badly done. The occupation voice, the insincere and annoying Kanan Makiya: urged on Charlie Rose that US arrests tens of thousands of Iraqis: and this pro-democracy advocate also called for the arrest of those who appear on AlJazeera and oppose the US occupation. He did not forget to add that he is opposed to the election of the constitutional council in Iraq; of course, he is opposed: left to their free choices, Iraqis would never elect people of his ilk. Oh, and Bush is saying that he is making progress in Iraq.